This open
letter is the response of a French Muslim tothe
call for emigrationlaunched by“Sheikh” Imran Hussein
to the Muslims of France following the attack against Charlie Hebdo. A first
version of this letter was sent to him privately on January 25th, and has not
received any significant response – except for a condescending evasion and a
referral to a new, yet more thunderous call of furious madness, which has
fortunately not been relayed (it is quoted at the end of this letter). It is
now published as an open letter, in an enriched and structured version meant for
easier reading and understanding, but it retains the same content as the letter
that was addressed to Imran Hussein via email. It is not so much to get a
response from him that we publish this letter – because he is clearly not open
to dialogue but engaged in mere fanatical and frantic preaching – but for the
benefit of French and international audiences.

Imran Hussein
is sometimes presented as an Islamic scholar specialising in “eschatology” and keeping an enlightened eye on
international news, analysing it in the light of theological sources. Without
challenging the interest of some of his analyses, it can be asserted that anybody
with even a little Islamic knowledge can say with certainty that the
legitimacy, authority and seriousness of his exegetical and theological works
are null and that his analyses contradict many of the fundamental teachings of
Islam. This open letter is a first draft, a first step in an effort to
demonstrate it to all those who are not convinced of this by merely listening
to his ramblings. It will be followed by other writings more targeted and
synthetic and by the translation of a recent religious discourse by Sayed
HassanNasrallahdevoted to authentic
Islamic eschatology in its relation to international news and to the end of times.
In this speech, Sayed HassanNasrallah criticised in particular, relying
on evidence which all schools of Islam and any rational person are unanimous
on, the dangers represented by preachers who claim to know the future, which
Imran Hussein is a perfect example of (Arabic speakers can see it right nowhereandhere).

This call to hijra or “emigration”, launched at the French Muslims because of
their situation in France and that current events may foreshadow according to
him, is absolutely senseless, outrageous and irresponsible and frankly
grotesque – and that is obvious, whether one bases himself on rational, moral
or religious criteria – to the point that such an individualshould not
even receive the slightest consideration, let alone motivate a long response
effort which will necessarily consist of a tedious rosary of truisms. But the
French context being what it is – with the daily political and media
stigmatization of Muslims, with prominent extreme right voices promoting their
forced “remigration” –, Imran Hussein being regarded by some as an authority,
and his first call having unfortunately been echoed by several alternative news
sites without the required warnings and caveats (due to lightness,
carelessness or ignorance, or, as it has sometimes been feared, in a brown- navy
blue political agenda), which allowed him to exceed 200 000 views (all sources
combined), without having provoked a formal and public response to our
knowledge, this endeavour may not be useless.

In
conclusion, I stress the fact that I do not pretend to speak on the behalf of
all the Muslims ofFrance: I myself have
suffered too much from hearing voices lacking any legitimacy (self-appointed or
nominated from above and / or from outside our community for purposes of
control, infantilization and even humiliation) speaking on my behalf utter
nonsense and even infamy. I do not claim that all of the French Muslim
community adheres to the substance and form of all the points made below, but I
am convinced that my analysis conforms much more to common sense, to moral and
positive law, to the laws of God, to the reality of the situation in France and
in the world and to the feeling of the vast majority of French Muslims than are
the bogus rantings of Imran Hussein.

I wanted to
express my deepest indignation about your video calling on French Muslims –
especially those with foreign roots – to migrate towards “their” country, and
to ask you to clarify the background of your thinking and provide valid
evidence and arguments to support your views. As a Muslim, French-Algerian
(born and having lived in France, and with dual nationality), as a man of
principles, committed to morality and the law, and with the Grace of God, as a
person gifted with reason and discernment, I cannot but be deeply shocked by
just about everything you say. With all due respect to an elder, whose
benevolence can be postulated, and if I am allowed to speak my mind, I consider
your exhortations contrary to common sense, ethics and fairness and opposite to
the fundamental teachings of the Holy Quran and our Prophet Muhammad (saas) as
I understand them. And what is more, irresponsible in this context.

I will do
my best to justify my point of view in the most clear, the strongest and most
respectful manner, hoping that I can elicit a reasoned response to my
objections.

Muslims in
France: oppressed and persecuted?

You began by
describing life in France for Muslims as impossible. According to you, the
situation is such that we have now only one alternative: either we repudiate
our identity, keep our heads down and lose our dignity, or we leave, emigrate.

I do not agree
with your analysis of the situation. Indeed, there is clearly a political and
media offensive against Islam and Muslims – and this throughout the whole West,
however, not just in France: the first time I heard these insane exhortations
to Emigration was from a Salafi Imam (Palestinian moreover) from Miami in 2008,
during the presidential elections, about what John McCain said about Obama. And before
that, Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X had advocated it among US blacks, but
fortunately, the great Malcolm X radically changed
his perspective when he gained access to true Islam and its
universal message – but you apparently want us to regress a century. Certainly,
we are despised, degraded, trampled, etc., it is the truth, but it happens
especially in the media, in politics, etc., so in other spheres than the
everyday. In day-to-day life, the difficulties are not so great. We live
in real life, not on TV, and anyway, many are deserting the mainstream media in
favour of the Internet: the example of the success of Dieudonné is sufficient
to show that millions of people – not only Muslims, far from it – could not
care less for the political and media propaganda. Of course, we sometimes
experience what one might clearly call prejudice, racism, Islamophobia in our
daily lives, and perhaps even more so when we have a ‘higher’ social position,
these attacks become more vivid and palpable – but then again we are better
equipped to defend ourselves. But the ignorant, the sheep and the spiteful are
not of an aggressive temper and easily calmed when they dare to exceed the
limits, especially since the character and the “native” culture of the
Arab-Muslims is far from having dissipated, and we are generally proud people,
sensitive to honour and dignity, and therefore not willing to let people trample
on us – in the authentic tradition, updated, of French panache.

Thus, contrary
to what you claim, our beard is not a problem anymore than the veil of our
sisters, wives and daughters, at least no problem that we cannot overcome –
because the secularist opprobrium towards the veil, unique in the world, that
we are subjected to in France, is actually a real problem, but failing to lift
it (which can be done), we have already been able to overcome this obstacle
which does not constitute a major impediment. It is not as if we were a
marginal minority: we are millions, and we are a visible community,
sometimes dominant in certain geographical areas and neighbourhoods, and
coexisting with millions of non-Muslims who have nothing against us, on the
contrary. It is not as if we could not live as we wish to, we can absolutely do
that. For the record, even in higher education, it has happened several times
that overzealous University Teachers be punished by their superiors – even
booed by their students – for making derogatory remarks about veiled women. One
can see veiled women even in the biggest schools in Paris, from Henri IV to the
Ecole Normale Supérieure. And you may even be surprised to know that some time
ago, when I was there myself, there was a French teacher of Arabic origin at
Paris IV Sorbonne University (a highly symbolic place) who wore the veil in her
very classes, for at least an entire school year, and I am not aware of the
fact that she was worried, though, of course, many teeth must have ground.

We still can
and do raise our heads, and keep our beliefs and principles while leading a
normal, healthy, fulfilling life, and with access, more and more, to all
honourable spheres of social and professional life (because we do not lament to
see ourselves prohibited access to certain doors that those who are attached to
their convictions and dignity do not aspire to cross). Our mosques are full on
Friday and even too full, new mosques flourishing all over France, in the most
remote places. Are these signs of a dying, choked, threatened religious life?
Certainly not, on the contrary. Yes, we Muslims in France do feel that we are
attacked, but we are not powerless as you claim, we do not feel or weak or
vulnerable neither disoriented nor lost and even less beset by discouragement
or despair. We go on and we remain firmly committed to our principles, and if
need be, we will go even further in asserting our identity and claims, with the
strict respect for others that our religion requires, so as to be fully
accepted wherever we wish, and not be subjected to any form of discrimination.
Thanks to the education that our parents gave us and education that we received
during our schooling and our studies, and that we have acquired ourselves,
thanks to all the opportunities available to us here in France, we have become
more aware and more educated than our parents, more learned and more active
including in our religion itself (as shown by the very widespread hijab),
we have accessed higher functions and positions, and we are increasingly active
in our society. Moreover, in all likelihood, God willing, our children will go further
still, never denying or forgetting that our principles and traditions are
essential and inseparable from our identity.

That was about
your analysis of the situation.

Is France “our”
country?

You assert that
France is not our country. Although we were born here, we were raised here, we
have built all our lives here and we feel at home, etc., you deny us the right
to say that we are here at home, that France is indeed “our” country. I really
do not understand how anyone can legitimately declare such things with such self-assurance.
How can we address millions of people and throw at each of them: “The land on
which you were born, where you grew up and lived and that you inherited from
your father, this house you've built and in which you live with your family,
where your children were born and where they grow up, this city and this
country you love, your neighbours, everything to which you are attached by both
material and immaterial links, all this is not yours. You are not at home. Do
you want to know where your true home is? It is a place with which you perhaps
have no affiliation with, a place where you might never have been, which you
perhaps do not even speak the language, for which you may not even feel a
thing, but it's your one and only home, so go back there now.” What is this
nonsense? Are we Zionist settlers, or descendants of settlers, to deserve such
outrages? What authority, what basis could legitimately afford to make such
radical verdicts? These are issues of a legal, moral and factual basis, which
cannot be determined by any person or body other than those directly concerned,
and in a very strict framework, except by abuse and violation of the most
fundamental rights – such as Zionists did in 1948 when they expelled the Arabs
by force of arms, claiming that they were not at home and showing off their
2000 years old falsified title deed.

I precise that
I do not specifically express myself for my own case. It happens that I feel
quite at home in Algeria, and also I have lived in several Arab countries for
some time, and even in other countries where I could enjoy a great material
comfort (much more than in France) and where I felt quite at home. Along with
French, I master English, Arabic and other languages, and I can feel totally at
ease in many places. And I can even admit that several years ago, I actually
felt that my place was not in France but elsewhere, in an Arab and Muslim
country, and that is why I have travelled and tried to settle here or there,
but it never lasted more than a year. Each time a compelling reason brought me
back to France, as if Allah kept repeating incessantly: “Stop trying to escape
your responsibilities, your place is in France, your duty is in France”. In
addition, like Victor Hugo, I discovered abroad how attached I
was to my country. But I precise that I in no way consider such personal
feelings and experiences as universal arguments admissible per se, and I
only put them forward to give more weight to my argument and show that contrary
to what you claim, that it is certainly not necessarily a need of a material
nature that keeps us in France but considerations of a higher order: this is
where we need to be, and we cannot be “home” anywhere else.

“Over there”,
shall we be “at home” and safe?

I really cannot
understand how you can crush the infinity of particular cases and condense them
into a single proclamation: “All of you, millions of existences, go home – that
is, the home of your ancestors which, as I have decreed, is your home.” What
of those who have no connection with their “home”? What if there is no specific
location, or if there are several, in different countries, how to choose
between them - not to mention the French natives converted to Islam? How to
leave, where to go? Where to live? And if we could not find a place, if we
could not “integrate” ourselves, adapt to very different lifestyles? What if we
do not find welcome, nor housing, nor work, nor assistance, nor welfare,
whether material, moral or spiritual? And it is indeed very likely that we will
not even be able to feed our families because we are talking about Third World
countries where unemployment is considerable, there is glaring poverty, and
problems difficult to overcome even for the locals, who are better equipped to
do this and who are struggling to live properly. Moreover, they often receive
assistance from their families across the Mediterranean – and they would be
deprived of this if we joined them. And they certainly would consider us, and
with far more legitimacy than the French extreme right can do, as foreign
invaders come to eat their bread that was not even enough to feed them.

What to say indeed
of the very country where we should in your opinion go, the society that we
will find, as if millions of people with a very different mindset and habits
could be welcomed like this, without clashes, especially in our fragile
countries that would only be more destabilized by these human tidal waves? Do
you not see that this fanciful fantasy (for thank God, you are promoting
something absolutely senseless and impossible) is a recipe for generating chaos
and destruction, both individually, with the millions of lives that you want to
uproot and crush, and at national and societal levels? What you advocate
completely contradicts morality, justice, reason and religion. To order in such
a way, indiscriminately, millions of people to give up their lives, their homes
and migrate into the unknown when they could just stay where they are and
continue to live as they please and even improve their lives and those of their
fellow citizens (and I speak of course of all the conditions of an authentic
life, from the material to the spiritual), is simply absurd. Even more, since when
we are at home, it is easier to defend ourselves when faced with adversity,
because we are on familiar ground: we know our society, its customs, its laws,
we have our dear ones, a community, etc., so many landmarks that greatly
facilitate existence and the struggle. What about all the unknown problems we
will inevitably face in “our” new country, with all the disadvantages of a
newcomer, alone, inexperienced and helpless? Is it not precisely for this
reason that our religion enjoins us particularly to express kindness and
charity towards travellers and foreigners, because they are among the more
helpless?

It is not an
acceptable argument to say that because at such a place, we find such and such
a problem, then we should flee, migrate, because situations change, from
security to insecurity and vice versa, from tolerance to intolerance and vice
versa (cf. Syria, Libya, etc.), from irreligion to faith and vice versa
(Communist USSR to Orthodox Russia, Iran of the Shah to the Islamic Republic,
etc.). Someone who would have fled from Algeria in 1990 for Libya would today
do the opposite. So are we supposed, we Muslims, to become like the Bedouins of
old and live like nomads moving from one place to another, fleeing the problems
as they arise, or live in isolation as you recommend, withdrawing into the bush
like hermits or Mormons? Are these the teachings of Islam? Flee the company of
your peers and live alone in the woods like savages? Live only with Muslims,
and if you were born in the wrong place (or if the situation has changed, which
cannot fail to happen eventually wherever you go), pack your bags and leave the
place? Move each time a problem occurs, instead of courageously confronting and
resolving it? Flee from the battlefield, as if there was only one place on the
face of the Earth where the descendants of Adam will not be tested in their
lives and in their faith? God created us precisely for this, to test our faith
and endurance. And the whole earth belongs to Him, and has been created and
populated for this purpose. Even in Syria and Iraq, where men are cut into
pieces by the greatest danger ever known by Islam to date,
namely the terror of the Islamic State, and have the option (when they have it)
between converting to a barbaric ritual that has nothing to do with Islam or be
slaughtered and see their wives and their children taken captives, all we could
say is that emigration is authorised, and certainly not that it is obligatory.
And those who remain to fight should be encouraged and praised, even if those
fleeing for their lives in front of a real, concrete and not far away and
fantasized danger need not be condemned. As for saying that the analogy is not
valid because Iraq, unlike France, is a land of Islam (if we consider that a
Land of Islam is an Land inhabited by Muslims, which is not a sufficient
condition to me), I would respond that the whole earth belongs to Allah, and He
has promised its entire inheritance to the righteous and pious of His servants
before the End Times. And certainly not by sudden invasions and conquests as
Bush claimed to “spread” democracy, but with the coming of the Mahdi
and Messiah (as) who will unify the ranks of all people of goodwill who are
beginning to join forces and to meet on the local, national and
international level .

Which
countries are really “Muslim”?

As for the
faith itself, are all predominantly Muslim countries really Muslim? Is Islam,
in its authenticity, occupying an important place there, from the political to the
social spheres? Are there not roads to ruin there, as dangerous as here (or
worse, because we are not prepared for them)? And ways of salvation just as
safe in France or safer yet, because I have seen many “Western” people more
pious and more knowledgeable in Islam than many people among their “Eastern”
brothers, who are more exposed to ignorance, obscurantism and blindness – thank
God, Muslims of the Islamic State are only marginally Western? In some “Muslim”
countries, it is dangerous to belong to some schools of Islam and even to utter
any word of truth. In Saudi Arabia, for example, where one can easily be
arrested, imprisoned, tortured and maimed for little, or in places where the
Salafi and Wahhabi ideologies are very much alive like in Algeria, one may be
exposed to rigorism and even to fanaticism, which are totally alien to Islam.
Not to mention Libya, Syria or Iraq, where you simply risk having your throat
slit, or what is happening in

Bahrain . Our religion, I think, is certainly not the mere formalism and set
of external rituals advocated by the “Salafi” and other legalistic literalists
who limit themselves to the bark and deny the sap, but above all a system of
values ​​that must be embodied in everyday life, and that gives a fundamental
place to justice, law, tolerance, knowledge and resistance to oppression. Have
you forgotten the famous words of Muhammad
Abduh (“I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back
to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam.”) and its teachings? In this regard,
the least we can say is that designating the political regimes and societies
that are closest to authentic Islam is not straightforward, and in many ways
ranging from social to political, I consider that France would win not only
over Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, but even over countries like Egypt.

Our home is
here, our livelihoods are here, our rights and our duties are here, it is here
that we belong and can have a role to play, a message to transmit. God made us
grow up here and gave us the tools to act in this context, in this society, our
knowledge and capabilities have been developed in this specific context. If we
leave, all will lose much of its value, and may even be a handicap in the new
context we would find ourselves in. While we have the ability to do many things
here, if we leave, we will become unable to do much, either for ourselves and
for our narrow or wider community, for France or for the destination country.

Emigration
in the time of the Prophet (saas)

You admonish us
to emigrate, presenting this to us as a mandatory sunnah of the Prophet
(saas), and reminding us that even living in the West, we are bound to follow
it, clearly implying that not doing so would be a disobedience on our part, a
denial of the tenets of our Prophet (saas). But again, I believe that the
alternative you present categorically is false and abusive, both from the point
of view of the facts and from the standpoint of the practices, teachings and
injunctions of the Prophet (saas) as they are recognised by all Muslims.

It is true that
the Prophet Muhammad (saas) initially suggested to (and certainly not
ordered) a small group of persecuted followers to make hijra to
Abyssinia, to preserve their faith and even their lives, which were directly
threatened by the Quraysh of Mecca against who they had no means to defend
themselves. They were indeed among the most vulnerable social groups, not only
suffering bullying and abuse, but even torture that could lead to death, as in
the famous example of 'Ammar b.Yasir and his parents. But the Prophet
(saas) only raised the suggestion five years after the proclamation of Islam,
so after five years of terrible persecution incomparable with what we can see
or imagine in France (in the near or distant future), and only for a very small
group (less than 20 people who were followed the next year by about 80, making
a hundred in total), the majority of Muslims having remained in Mecca with the
Prophet (saas).Moreover, he did not send them to adventure into the unknown,
but to Negus of Ethiopia, a generous and just Christian whom he had full
confidence in and knew that he would welcome the emigrants well – and who would
become a valuable ally of the Muslims. Therefore, there is absolutely no
possible analogy between the emigration to Abyssinia and what you invite us to.

Similarly for
the main migration to Medina which marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar,
which took place 13 years after the beginning of the proclamation of Islam, that
is 13 years of unspeakable suffering for Muslims – ostracism, economic blockade
leading to famine, torture, murder, etc. Yet never was an order to “escape”
given, nor even recommended. At most, it was permissible or even suggested to
some particularly vulnerable and minority groups. It is only when a delegation
from Medina pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saas) and Islam was implanted
there, after the second oath of allegiance at Aqaba, that he began to suggest
to Muslims to go there in small groups, not so much for their own protection as
for the edification of the first Muslim society that was obviously a necessity
in these times when Islam was extremely fragile. And it is only when the Quraysh
decided to collectively attempt on the life of the Prophet (saas) that he
himself emigrated, and that most Muslims found themselves in Medina with him.

The Prophet
(saas) had a direct revelation from God, and therefore spoke and recommended
with certainty and not on the mere basis of predictions due to analyses that
may well not have the authority and the necessary soundness and could be
completely refuted and contradicted – not to say that they are completely extravagant.
Secondly and more importantly, he had the responsibility to safeguard Islam,
which was threatened with extinction, by founding a safe home where Islam and
Muslims could live in peace, security, and build a true community – which they
could not do anywhere on the face of the Earth back then.

Thus, whether towards
Abyssinia or Medina, emigration was only for a limited time, it was at the
suggestion of the Messenger of Allah (saas) who received divine revelation, and
above all, it was never an obligation, even if under these conditions, it was
natural that the place of new converts to Islam was to be at the sides of their
Prophet (saas) in an authentic Islam haven which needed to be constructed from
the foundations. The Prophet (saas) was infallibly told by God what was coming
and so had the authority to direct, but despite this, he only suggested and
invited and certainly did not order, and he never uttered the slightest word of
contempt or condemnation about Muslims who, for various reasons, remained in
Mecca (and have also contributed, at their level, to the advent of Islam). And
he did not invite Muslims to leave security for danger and the unknown (or
deprivation and / or death insured) as you do with the Muslims of France, but
to flee a danger to greater security – If indeed they felt in danger – and to
join him with a solid guarantee of security and prosperity, that of God and His
Prophet (saas), to work towards the building of the first Muslim society in
history. The Prophet (saas) had guarantee of a safe refuge in Medina, and had made
​​all the arrangements, during more than one year, to ensure that Muslims would
be welcomed, they would be installed with dignity and a livelihood provided for
them, and yet God had made emigration mandatory only for him because spreading
the message of Islam was his responsibility. The Prophet (saas) was extremely
concerned with the material and psychological well-being of people, and he
never allowed himself to launch such a messy appeal of “every man for himself”
that could destabilise and frighten the Muslims, who were limited in number, so
what about your current appeal to millions of people, that wants to have the
sounding of the horns of the Last Judgment? Where could they find such a
refuge? For what purpose, what would be their mission today? Regardless of the
angle at which we consider it, your call appears to me to be utter nonsense.

Emigration is
not an impromptu and thoughtless departure towards adventure and danger. On the
contrary, it is a carefully thought out project prepared by each individual, in
conditions that are not ours, at least not in the overall way you are
promoting, and which would require a situation in which a direct and concrete
danger weigh on our lives and our faith – not to say the sustainability of the
Muslim faith itself – and the existence of a safe place to hide. You suggest
that we would have a duty to leave on pain of contravening the injunctions of
our religion, when in fact it is rather the emigration that you prescribe which
would be the true disobedience. Not to mention the fact that an innocent does
not flee because he is in the right, and he will not give in to his enemies or
give them what they illegitimately desire without resistance. Only the guilty
and cowards flee danger – and only fools flee without reason.

A “strategic
retreat”?

You say quite
rightly that the emigration of Muhammad (saas) was by no means an act of
cowardice, and you remind that we, the followers of Muhammad (saas), do not
submit to oppression, are not cowards and do not run away from adversities or
battlefields, whatsoever. And that is why you strive to present this sudden and
massive emigration not as a new exodus (this time for Ishmael’s children), but
as a necessary measure facing an extremely powerful enemy decided on
eradicating us. You claim that if, God forbid, we listened to you and
emigrated, it would not be a cowardly and disgraceful flight from the
battlefield, an abdication in the face of adversity, that our principles do not
allow us, but simply a kind of “strategic retreat” before coming back stronger
and victorious. With all the respect I owe you, this analysis seems to me
absurd and shocking.

Thus, the fact
of emigrating to abandon our home, our work, our friends, our whole life, to
flee the scene not faced with a known and present hazard, as the Islamic state
in Syria or Iraq, but faced with a confused and distant danger, would not be a
stupid and ignominious flight but a sensible and courageous act? For whatever
the danger, which is real, no doubt, but infinitely smaller and less imminent
than what you say, why not wait for it? Why not stay here and try to prevent
it, then to confront it if it has to materialize anyway? Why not even consider
struggling, resisting, fighting? Are we sheep, or calves? No, we are not cowards
nor fools, and regardless of the dangers that arise, we will face them and we
will defend ourselves with all our strength. Our parents and grandparents have
left their country to come here and settle here, they earned their life the
hard way and endured many difficulties in order to offer us an honourable
situation, they worked on the reconstruction of France and built our houses,
and we should give it all up, give all their efforts up as vain, flee away and
start again from naught simply because of the vague rumbling of thunder afar?
We should rush into the unknown where so many difficulties lie ahead,
predictable and concealed, against which we would be completely helpless? While
whatever happens in France, we know very well the ground from having been born
there, having lived and help shape it, so that it will be much easier to stand
here and preserve our principles and dignity, regardless of the danger? Is it
not an oppression, and even an absurdity to impose this flight on us? And God
knows we are not weak, or alone, or poor and that coexistence is far from being
impossible as you suggest. We are not only strong, but we will be alongside the
hundreds of thousands of French non-Muslims who are attached to the law, have
no prejudices, and understand the pernicious logic of the clash of
civilizations that people have attempted to impose in France to distract it
from the real issues (political, economic and social), and to which it has
everything to lose.

Moreover, what
would we actually do, in Algeria and elsewhere, for all these years? Because it
is about returning stronger, but how? How to properly prepare for the “fight
against the oppressor”? When and how should we return? How long will our exile
last? Will redemption be for us, for our children, their great-grandchildren?
What to do? It is unacceptable to be so allusive faced with such important
questions, which should, to listen to you, turn entire lives upside down. Are
you suggesting that we return, for example, to Algeria for a decade, to follow
some proper training for a few years in order to be able to come back and “invade”
France and submit the oppressor of yesteryear? Is it realistic, reasonable, or
is it not rather an absurd fantasy? And why the military presentation of the
situation, as if there was a war between Islam and France, and that our role
was to remake the Crusades? Our religion, well before the great Robespierre , formally
prohibited any war of aggression or conquest (“And if thy Lord had willed,
all the men populating the Earth would have, without exception, embraced his
faith. Is it up to you then to force men to become believers?”- Quran, X,
99; “No compulsion in religion” - Quran, II, 252), and no examples of
offensive war can be found in the Sunnah of the Prophet (saas). If we had been
subjected to the torture, murder, blockades and expropriations that Muslims of
Mecca suffered, it could have been legitimate to take our due by force, but if we
decide to part on our own and leave spontaneously, what will be our grievance?
What will be our justification? Our religion forbids us to be both oppressor
and oppressed, but you have obviously decided that we are going to break every
interdiction.

Anyone who
voluntarily abandons his situation, his rights and his property without a
formidable danger, real and present having constrained him, will have no
legitimacy to claim them, neither in this world nor in the other. If we leave
France to settle elsewhere, be it for a few years or decades, France will no
longer our country and our demands will not be legitimate because what is much
more easily conceivable in a future not too distant is a tightening of the
rules on nationality: questioning the birth right (jus soli), the
automatic transmission of nationality to children, imposing a necessary
presence in France x months each year, etc. Listening to you, we would
then put ourselves in the same situation of the Palestinians who left their
homes in 1948, fleeing war for a very short time, they thought, but who never
returned and were dispossessed of everything, finding themselves, to date,
refugees all over the world. Do you want us to become the stateless of tomorrow?
New wandering Jews? By our own fault, without being subjected by force and
without making the slightest show of resistance, while the troops of the
Pharaohs of today are not after us, or even constituted – at least at the
national level? It's truly insane.

Islam and
the clash of civilizations

It seems
irresponsible, especially in this context, to give credit to the theory of the “clash
of civilizations” advocated and shaped entirely by the US imperialists,
Zionists, and racists and extremists on all sides. You give an “Islamic”
caution to these hateful and incendiary speeches, challenged by our religion,
according to which the coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims, between
French “by extension” and “indigenous” French would not be possible. Now,
thanks to you, these racists can invoke the guarantee of a “Muslim authority”,
calling precisely for what they call, that is to say “remigration” involving
deprivation of citizenship and deportation, voluntary or forced. They argue
loudly that Islam has no place in France, and that Muslims cannot live together
in peace with the rest of the French. And you add your voice to theirs, while
our religion does not advocate segregation and antagonism but peace,
coexistence, harmony, understanding and tolerance, and, of course, dignity and
self-defence – because like Malcolm X, we do not turn the other cheek and are
able to defend ourselves by all means necessary. I regret to tell you, but you
are, whether you realise it or not, the perfect recruit for Islamophobic ,
anti-Arab and anti-immigration ‘identitarians’, and they chant your praises all
day long in their discussion forums. You are a blessing to them, and you come
right on cue, allowing them to be even bolder in their attacks against Islam
and Muslims and their rejection of a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural France.

A war is
declared not against Islam as such, but, in general, against all authentic beliefs,
traditions, values ​​and freedoms, against all that can cause individuals,
communities and nations to be strong and awake, to unite and shake off the yoke
of oppression. The barbaric and obscurantist Islam of Saudi Arabia is not an
enemy of the West, on the contrary, it is its main ally, as it only teaches
ignorance and submission. Muslims should not worry just about being Muslims,
but only in proportion to their degree of awakening, resistance and activism,
like any other citizen, although today, Islam is actually presented as a prime
target because of its values ​​and its ability for cohesion. This offensive is
currently taking place globally, and France could become a front line in this political,
ideological and cultural war – and sometimes military. And as the US and Israel
are its International spearhead, as well as rags like Charlie Hebdo were
its diligent soldiers, as well as the hyena
Marine Le Pen and her party hold high the banner of that cause, your words are
now used as a guarantee in this offensive, hence, I apologize, this long letter
of protest. You bring the voice of a “Muslim scholar” to this arena of the “clash
of civilizations”, repeating what our enemies say, namely that coexistence
between Muslims and non-Muslims in France is impossible.

Are we not,
before God as before men, responsible not only for our intentions, but also for
our approach, for the way we transmit our message, for our rigour, our
humility, and the foreseeable consequences of our words and our actions? Should
we not be careful not to give ammunition to our enemies, not to allow them to
use to their advantage our statements and actions, and be careful not to lead
astray people whose entire lives could be broken if they tried to apply these
exhortations to reckless emigration? It seems to me that you are careless or
ignorant in the face of these realities.

Russia vs the Empire

You do not bring the smallest scrap of evidence
to support your unrealistic predictions, except for a paralogism, namely the reference to American imperialism and Russia
which stands up againstits
hegemony. Even if this geopolitical analysis was relevant – and I agree with it to a greatextent– it would have no consequence upon the alleged validity of your main message about the situation of
Muslims in France and your exhortations to emigration. If you push people to
suicide by arguing that the sun rises in the East, the fact that the latter proposition is
undeniably true gives no weight to the exhortationyou have drawn from it, as ithas absolutely nothing to do with the initial
observation.

The American Empire is indeeddetermined to impose its
hegemony over the world and to crush all resistance, especially that of Russia
and China, which are its main opponents (but we could also cite the whole of BRICS, Iran, Syria, Latin America, etc.). Certainly, the American
Empire is criminal and aims at domination over the planet, and it's ready to
crush anyone who stands in the way, without the least consideration of moral or
humanitarian issues. But in what is this empire more ruthless than those who
have gone before, or those who are likely to follow? Every tyrant, every
Empire, since Adam (as), has never shied away from any massacre, or any kind of
atrocity to satisfy its hegemonic desires. The fact that the imperialists are
barbarians is a truism (which Che Guevara already denounced in eloquent terms),
and presenting the degree of cruelty of the current Empire as unprecedented is an unfounded argument,
because it has always been so (Romans, Crusaders, Mongols ...).To claim that we
are in the worst place at the worst time, in order to push us to flee like rats– and please excuse
me, but I do not see how I could put it another way– is nothing but a free extrapolation, a
dramatic effect stripped of all reality. Perhaps it would be better for us to
be in Tripoli or Benghazi? In Baghdad, Mosul, or Kobane? In Raqqa, in Deir
al-Zurr or in Homs? In the Donbass, in Slavyansk, in Mariupol? I would even say
that what Muslims suffered in the early days of Islam by the hands of Quraysh
is much worse than anything that the French State and Westerners can and could
ever make us suffer (of course, I speak of the treatment which can beinflictedwithin a country to its own citizens, simply because of their faith, not of deadly wars that they can carry out outside their borders for many other
reasons). What is actually different today is the scale of the confrontation
(political, media, cultural and military), the power of destruction and the
risk of nuclear war, but it would be ludicrous to think that we could escape
such an Armageddon. On the contrary, we have seenin
Iraq, Libya and Syria that it isprecisely in « our » countries that there is a
high risk of death and destruction on a massive scale, whether by conventional
or unconventional armies and weapons. Therefore, even in the highly unlikely
case of an open war against Islam and Muslims, we would be way safer in France than in « our » countries where we would make ourselvesa prime target for genocidal
war criminals whose principles have not changed much since Dresden,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Moreover, the very fact that Russia has precisely
the willingness and ability to stand up to US imperialism leads in my view to
exactly opposite conclusions from the ones you have drawn, which might explain
why you haven't established any link between the two parts of your discourse.
The fact that Russia can victoriously resist the Empire, the Russia who isdefendinginternational law and the diversity of the world, the Russia who has
come to the aid of Syria (and perhaps thus prevented a world war) as it helped
the innocents of Donbass, which certainly considers Islam and Muslims as allies, constitutes a factor whichshould rather convince us to stay in
France and be more visible, to be more and more active and revendicative. For just as Muslims have truly integrated with
Russia despite the storms provoked by the West in Chechnya, as
ilustrated by the example of Kadyrov, we will be able to ‘integrate’" genuinely (and not ‘disintegrate’ in the French style) throughout the multipolar and
multicultural world of tomorrow, wherever we are. The ‘Axis of Evil’– that
created from scratch the clash of civilizations– is collapsing, its vassals (including France)
irrevocably will follow, and the emerging forces are attached to thetraditional values ​​promoted by Vladimir Putin, as Muslims are, so we'll be triumphant wherever we are if, as
you say (and as I believe and hope for), the Christian EasternEmpire was tobe proclaimed victor of the war that the West imposed
on it.

Thus, given the state of forces present, whether
nationally or internationally, it is virtually impossible that a project like the one you envision in France could
succeed. If we were to actually replay the thirties with Muslims in the role of
scapegoats, and a general
conflagration between the West and the East, I argue, with certainty, and just
like you, that the West can't win, neither inside nor outside. None of the unthinkable concentration camp
or genocidal measures which you warn us against could be successful in the face
of millions of citizens who are not willing to let it happen, also considering
every other category of people who would rise up against this project. Whether
from the inside or outside, current conditions are much different than those of
the 1930s, when fascism was on the rise and was victorious everywhere. Today,
imperialism and its avatar, political or religious extremism, which the
Neo-Nazis in Ukraine or the Islamic State in the Middle East are expansions of,
are in decline.

Under no circumstances will it be the struggle
of Muslims against non-Muslims, but the struggle of those who are attachedto their identity and dignity, to their nation, their sovereignty and traditional values, ​​toa multi-ethnic society and a
multipolar world governed by international law on one side, against the
Empire's vassals on the other. Like all wars that preceded it, it will not be a
struggle with ethnic and religious dividing lines,but with divisions
that are political, economic and social. People can be trusted to flee when on
the vergeof being
defeated and annihilated, but certainly not when they have the wind in their
sails and their enemies are in decline. No one has a knife at the throat, and even
where this is the case in Syria and Iraq, which can not happen here, those who
stay to fight fall as patriots and martyrs, or will be victorious, because the
final victory is certain.

What is Islamic eschatology?

Your definition of eschatology only englobes its very
minor part, which is the signs of the End of this world, without mention of
man’s ultimate destination and the issues of Heaven and Hell, which should be
our main concerns. But even in this aspect, it is unfortunate that you donot even take the trouble to clarify the nature of the
perceived threat to us– what we can expect in your opinion, how, when and
why it will happen – or to provide admissible evidence. We have no description
of your oracular omens which are neither supported, nor justified, leaving just
an Apocalyptic atmosphere hovering to inspire fear and even terror, because
only the Armageddon could justify such a call of “run for your lives
and every man for himself ». But thank God, we are
reasonable people and we believe no one just from their word, especially when
their word consists of if not fanatical
exhortations, radical to say the least. Rather, we will follow the Qur'anic injunction:“Say: Produce your proof if
you are truthful.” (Qur'an, XXVII, 64).

You makethe hijra mandatory without the required authority, without the
conditions being met – whether at the place of departure or the destination. This seems to me to be
absolutely outrageous, and I would ask you, since you have not done it, to kindly indicate
your sources. Becauseyou
speak as if drawing your information from an exact science, or an infallible,
divine authority– and again, even the Prophets would certainly not comport themselves
as you do– while it is only analyses and interpretations of
yours which are highly questionable, even if you happen to advance Prophetic
traditions and Qur'anic verses which you interpret at your leisure, your
opinion being, as a matter of fact, rather unique in the Musim community. What you present as
the ultimate battle between Gog and Magog is only an interpretation of your
own, and which is not widespread in the community of Islamic scholars, most of
whom believe that Gog and Magog were Mongols who devastated Baghdad in 1258 (an event which bear muchmore comparison to the Armageddon that we can now see and predict) and
the end of the world might as well be in 50, 500 or 5000 years, or even much more. What recognized
Islamic authority shares your views and accepts your verdict? The UN?
So where do you get your information concerning the coming end of times, or the
concentration policy which is to be imminently implemented in France against
us? Did you get it from some arcane place, such as a soothsayer, or from the stars? This
is not even an exaggeration on my part, because you revealed in
a recent conference where you predicted an imminent nuclear war [1]
, which would take place in less than 5 years, that you had seen in your dreams
– and you present it as a divine revelation to convey to humanity, and as
absolutely indisputable, which would be funny: the pseudonym of one of your
main French translators, Jean Rigolencore [“I’m still laughing at it”], explicitly suggests that it is only a matter
of joke, a vast deception. The power to make such predictions assumes that you
have: 1 / the faculty to have prophetic dreams (which is not in itself
impossible); 2 / the ability to interpret them accurately, which, according to the teachings of
Islam, is a power reserved to certain divine Messengers, as shown by the
example of the Prophet Yusuf (as) interpreting the famous dream of the Pharaoh,
which everyone knew was prescient, but nobody but him had been able to
interpret precisely. Is it not proof of levity and blindness, if not a foolish
arrogance to adorn yourself with the most eminent prerogatives of the Prophets
(saas)? I will answer with these verses of Sura 53, aptly titled The
Star: “But theyhave no real
knowledge. They follow onlytheir own conjecture, and conjecture
has no control over the truth.” (Qur'an, LIII, 28).

These issues of divination of the future and the
end of time are things that are part of the unseen (al ghayb), which are
known only to Allah, and which He reveals only partially to some of His Prophets (as): "[It is He] who
knows the unseen. He does not reveal it to anyone, except for those whom He has
chosen as a messenger"(Qur'an LXXII 26-27). The Prophet Muhammad (saas)
himself said that knowledge of what would happen in the future was one of the keys of the unseen known only to God,
whether a matter of tomorrow's events or the end of time, the details of which
he himself ignored. "Say: 'I will not tell you that I possess the treasures of
Allah, nor do I know theunseen, and I'm not saying that I am an
angel. I only follow what is revealed to me." (Quran, VI,
50). How can you ignore so blatantly these Qur'anic verses and the authentic
traditions and be so adamant in your predictions? If you know enough Arabic, I
urge you to listen to this conference by Sayed Hassan Nasrallah (first
and second parts), where he speaks very precisely
of the ways and limits of what we can, as Muslims, know of the future,
especially about the end times, with reference to various interpretations that
arise about current events. Sayed Hassan Nasrallah evokes the responsibility of
people of knowledgeand
their duty of care and humility in order not to mislead people or to themselves
wander from the truth.

The American Empire is in decline and will
eventually collapse (may God make it happen in our lifetime!), taking with it
its ‘values’ (all of which are listed on the stock exchange), its
satellites and its vassals. It willnot lead the world anymore, not from Washington nor
from Paris, nor Jerusalem, contrary to what you have presented as an admitted truth which could only convince the ignorant,
Israel being doomed to disappear just like French Algeria. Their influence is
being weakened, not strengthened, and their golden age is long gone. In 1995,
the United States could devastate Eastern Europe via NATO, but in 2013, they
had to bend pitifully to Russia on the Syrian issue and are currently being defeated in Ukraine.
In 1967, Israel was able to crush five Arab countries in six days, but in 2000
and 2006 , they experienced a routagainst the Lebanese Islamic
Resistance, and finally, they were defeated in Gaza itself. The heroes
of these victories against Israel, who have fought on the ground for decades
(Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Gaza) are reasonable and lucid people, they have an experience and insightthat you have not, and
are therefore much more qualified than you to talk about the situation, which
they do not describe in other words, that Israel is in its phase of decline and
destined to soon disappear, and certainly not destined for world domination.
Even renowned Western intellectuals speak of the ‘ultimate destruction’ of Israel as a fact that is most likely inevitable.
Religious authorities like Sayed Ali Khamenei, Ayatollah, or evenSayed Hassan Nasrallah, Hojatolislam,
are furthermore Islamic scholars at the forefront. Yet when they talk about
future geopolitical developments and eschatology, they do it with much more
humility than you, recalling the basic precautions to take when offering
political analysis or interpreting prophetic traditions and Koranic verses
pertaining to the end of time. But despite their authority, they have never
expressed themselves with complacency and conceit, and they have never
expressed contempt for your peers. I beg you not to talk down aboutpeople who are certainly
better scholars and hold more legitimacy than you.

Is France becoming totalitarian?

We are not blind, and are fully aware of the
severity of the current situation, as we are aware that things will certainly
get worse, along with the economic crisis and the scheduled decline of Europe,
which will be conducive to many an excess which before was inconceivable. We
are already seeing this with dictatorial legal proceedings against freedom of
expression, even to an Orwellian extent, with children 8 years old not spared the risk of a
charge of advocating terrorism. Anyone can be arbitrarily subjected to an abuse
of process, and even to prison sentences, like this cartoon which gained a 16 year old high schoolstudent a conviction. And many of us have spoken publicly about the
case and have expressed dissenting opinions vis-à-vis
the political and media howling & bleating, without giving in to this
campaign of intimidation, and thus becoming subject to prosecution. But is that
a reason to flee? Aren't such violations of rights to be found in the majority
of countries that restrict personal liberties as much as possible? All
political regimes, except genuinely democratic governments which are few and
far between, do the same with any opponent, any dissenting voice that can be a
danger to their rule. Actually, it'strue of most of the
countries of the East and West – and especially all the countries where you
want to send us to, claiming that they are ‘our’ only and true countries. There, all citizens must keep their silence on
issues deemed to be sensitive. If anyone tries to partake of a dissident speech
in the cradle of Islam, Saudi Arabia, then he will see what will happen to him –
he may be imprisoned, tortured and executed, as
is the case in Bahrain. They would imprison us on the sole basis of
acts of worship recommended by all schools of Islam, but which are forbidden by
Wahhabism. They forbid every word of truth, and are, in my opinion, the greatest
enemies of Islam, much worse than the United States or Israel, as the most
dangerous enemies are always the enemy within, the fifth column. And of course,
from one place to another, the ‘taboo’ topics may change
(here in France, it is all which concerns Israel, as in many other places,
although to an unparalleled degree) but can be summarized in the idea of any ‘anti-system’ speech, regardless of the system because our
principles and our religion always oppose any ‘system’, whatever it is, the system definingitself as the reign of an oppressive oligarchy that
denies the legitimate interests of the majority of people. Yes, they want to
silence us, to ‘convert’ us and our children to their unique way of thinking of moral degradation and subjugation, make us into sheep, but we will follow
the example of our Prophet Muhammad (saas), and we will resist, wearing high
and proudly our
sound and
healthy values ​​against their decadent‘values’.

And whatever you say, we are not under Saddam
Hussein, they willnot
physically take us or our loved ones, nor imprison us en masse in
concentration or re-education camps, or in a new Gulag, certainly not in a near
or distant future, at least not at the mere national level. Because if a concentration camp
projectsuch as the one you suggest happened (a foolish
assumption), they would come and find us where we are. They will not kill us,
or torture our families before our eyes – even the United States do not do that
on their own territory, though they do in other countries, including the Arab
vassal states, so you are literally asking us to put ourselves at the mercy of
our enemies. Here in France, we are still in a state of law, although they are
trying to crop it back little by little, and actually manage occasionally to do
unfair and unthinkable things, it is still much more difficult to violate human
rights (and therefore the values ​​of Islam) in France than in ‘our’ countries, where often there is not even the appearance of a state of
law. The worst that they can do to us, and then only for some of us, as a
French concentration camp system is not possible, is that we will be imprisoned
for a few months or years after unfair procedures, and there, to paraphrase the Prophet Yusuf
(as), I refute the discourse of your fellows with these words: ‘Oh my God! Prison seems
more desirable to me than what theyinvite me to, and if you do not protect me from their plans, I'll
give in and be among the ignorant.’ (Quran, XII, 33). It is only
cowards and criminals who flee and, in this context, the ignorant, those who
can not perform their duties, their responsibilities and even objectively
assess the reality of the situation and foreseeable risks.

The idea that we would have the choice between
fleeing now, while there is still time, or see ourselves forbidden from leaving
the territory and subjected to imprisonment on a massive scale – that is to
say, to express it in words, a policy of eradication – contradicts all factual
and rational data. Certainly, individuals like Le Pen or Aymeric Chauprade present things in this
apocalyptic way, invoking,after
Bush, a war between Islam and the West, saying that even French citizens like
me have to give up one of their nationalities and/or make a choice between ‘diluting’ their faith and leaving France – good luck to them
with achieving one or the other, either willingly or by force! But on the one
hand they are not in power, and secondly, even if they get into power (a
possibility we can not exclude), and even if they were foolish enough to try to
implement their campaign program and thus violate the Constitution and
international law, they would meet fierce resistance from many sectors of the
population and many international actors.It is highly doubtful that they will still try,
because in all likelihood they would prove themselves to be like all the other
parties when they come to power, really only changing their own lives and those
of their relatives, and not hastening to keep ignoble populist promises made to
an electorate that is often gullible, pathetically ignorant and/or abjectly
dishonourable. But let's give credit to this surreal apocalyptic vision and
admit the unthinkable, that they succeed, well, the worst that could happen
would be deportation of these people, exactly what they and you want and advocate (which makes me think that
you might be a Muslim for Judenräte, those Jews who collaborated with the Nazis for the
greatest misfortune of the Jews of Europe, and in the best interests of the
building of Israel). There is no reason to rush, even in the context of your
extravagant and unrealistic predictions. Unrealistic because all this could
happen only after a civil war, and probably several international wars, the ‘host countries’ having the right and even the duty to refuse such an
influx of refugees which would seriously destabilise their societies, that they
will without a doubt refuse. France could only get out of such a
mess ravaged and drained, and the fact that this
evidence is silenced uponhighlights
the degree of ignorance and blindness of neo-fascists who vote for the extreme
right in believing that this will rid them of their fellow citizens of foreign
origin and restore prosperity to France, as if the two issues were linked, and
as if there could be a winner in a civil war that would devastate the country
permanently. Only the unconscious – or enemies – may wish such developments to
pass. In the real world, mass deprivationsof nationality will be very difficult to implement in an abusive
manner by any government, whichever one it is, but it is a possibility that
changes nothing in the context of your fantasies: instead of leaving, let usawaitto be expelled after opposing them with any resistance
which we are capable of. At least our honour and duty– and common sense– will be safe.

Yes, the French government– like any government
in such circumstances– will take advantage of the situation to pass unjust laws, restrict
freedoms, arrest innocents, imprison without cause, deprive citizens of their
nationality, but it will remain on a limited scale, and it will not succeed in
silencing dissent, on the contrary. Yes, we see that they are trying to scare
us, get us used to a military presence, etc., but this is only the desperate
attempt of the most despised government in the history of France to regain a
semblance of legitimacy to strengthen its ‘influence’, weakened and already falling apart, that is its façade of respectability and legitimacy in the domestic area, and, internationally, the imperial world system of domination that usurps
the name of democracy. Flee now, when victory is near? Certainly not. We
are neither cowardly, nor servile, nor stupid. We have come so far, and we will
see the end and play an active role in the outcome.

It would be absurd to flee France, our country,
to other continents where we could do nothing but wait there, arms crossed,
until justice reigns in the world. Should we passively wait for the arrival of
the Mahdi and Messiah (as) instead of preparing the ground for them by our
actions and striving to be worthy enough
to be a part of their community? I'd much rather stay where I am and take
action to fight for the greater good of my family, my community and my
compatriots, whether believers or not, because I sincerely believe that
populations of immigrant origin can play an important role in the recovery of
France and contribute to freeing it from its political and moral decay, to
change its direction and reconnect it with genuine sovereignty. Arab-Muslim
populations have remained attached to their identity, traditions and dignity,
so many essential things that France and the French are being denied by
economic, political and cultural globalization and US imperialism, and they can
help France to reconnect with its roots and so place it in the ‘righteous’ camp, which defends the independence of Nations,
international law, traditional values ​​and multiculturalism, and which will
triumph with the Grace of God. If the Mahdi isto come back with Jesus, the Messiah (as), isit not to unite Muslims, Christians
and all free andhonourable men of this world, under the banner of truth and justice? Were we not
united, even in France, with our brothers and fellow citizens of all faiths, in
the fight against gay marriage? This is not the last battle that we will fight
together. As our enemies become more offensive, the more we will be united,
because we need each other, and we have much to do.

Today, Greece and Spain are the model of what
awaits us, not only with regard to austerity policies that governments will try
to impose on us, with the main target being the most vulnerable segments of the population
(regardless of their ethnic and religious affiliation, and whether or not they
are Charlie) as well as the hope of the emergence of new political forcesthrough popular and patriotic resistance movements that
are sure to emerge, opposing Brussels and Washington, and which we, as Muslims and, more to the point,
asFrench,
will fill the ranks in the interest of all. Islam is just the scapegoat, as there is always a scapegoat in times of crisis
to distract from and hide the real problems, but it only works for a time, and
in the end it is the poorest who pay, who find themselves the only victims. For
it is not only Islam that is attacked, but freedoms, social rights, sovereignty
and traditional values, and it is the majority of French people who will be the
victims of the oppressive economic and social policies of tomorrow.

Many of us have realized that the real issues
are not religious or civilizational, but economic and social – and anyway, it's not somethingnew, as these issues have
punctuated the history of France since 1789: the people and their legitimate
claims have been diverted from their real enemies – the banks – to inland
fictitious enemies (the Church, the
Jews...) or external enemies (Robespierre denounced this already in 1792, as
did Jules Vallès in 1883 about Tonkin). And every time they
woke up, the said people were executed by firing squad, from 17 July 1791 to 28 May 1871. How to abandonour friends, allies
and compatriots in this situation, those who have nowhere to go (assuming we
have some place to go, which is not the case at all)? It would be a shameful
flight, a shameful abandonment by any individual who respects himself, and
every Muslim. And what's more, it would be unwise, because there is
nothing unique in the stigmatization of Islam today. Every age, every place has
had its ‘scapegoat’ its ‘Jew’, its ‘Arab’. At the end of the nineteenth century, a great writer like Emile
Zola was described by Jacques Bainville in extremely racist terms
because of his foreign origins:‘this half-Italian, quarter-Greek, three or four times Métis, is it not a
fine specimen of humanity’. Zola has indeed aroused implacable hatreds, but he resisted bravely,
in France and abroad when he was actually forced into exile. But has he not
finished at the Pantheon, exalted for his pen and his defense of Dreyfus[2],
revealing himself to be more ‘French’ than the French by
his commitment to the eternal values ​​of freedom, truth and justice? And one
could multiply examples, but there is too much to say for me to do more than
scratch the surface of the matter, at least in the context of this writing.

Let's just say in conclusion that most
anti-immigrant statements denouncing the Islamization of France and Europe, the
‘great replacement’ are nothing more than ignorance and denial of an inescapable
reality, often reflecting a gross misunderstanding of the history of France and
the world in general, which is a permanent mixing of peoples and cultures. It
is virtually a natural law. Those so much concerned by ‘National Identity’ should perhaps ask not to be called the ‘French’ because after all, the Franks were originally a Germanic people who
settled in Gaul. And they certainly should return to the original Gallic
religion, because the Judeo-Christian heritage is of Semitic origin. This
rejection of the other and of the evolution of society is nonsense, an aberration, that which is
rejected one day later becoming a fully accepted standard. It's only a matter
of time, patience and effort, as there is no incompatibility between the values
​​of (authentic) Islam and those of (authentic) France, on the contrary. Certainly,
we reject the extremist secularism ‘in the French style’, which has been, since the Encyclopédistes[3],
1789 and Jules Ferry, an open offensive against the historical identity of
France (‘the eldest daughter
of the Church’) and against
religion[4],
but we would accommodate ourselves
perfectly with the principle of secularism in itself, as we accommodate any
scheme that would guarantee the freedom of belief and worship. As for the
fantasy of the Islamization of France and Europe, and the advent of an Islamic
government, anyone who knows the basic principles of Islam knows that only
massive public support can allow that a true Islamic state be proclaimed, not
50.1% of the votes cast as alleged false pseudo-democratic standards in force
in the West, but more than 80% of the votes of all voters, as in Iran in 1979
when the Islamic Republic was demanded by more than 90% of the population. The
example of Hezbollah in Lebanon, a predominantly Muslim country divided between
Sunnis and Shiites, with a Christian minority, clearly illustrates this: the formidable military power that Israel had
been humiliated by twice would bequite able to take power in Lebanon if it wished, but
the requirements of Islam would make such a movean unpardonable sin, and there is no question for them
to erect an Islamic state, not in the near future nor in the distant future, but simply to help
towards the stability and cohesion of the multi-confessional state.

We are not a fifth column, we donot work against France but with it,
with an authentic France, that of Joan
of Arc against Charles VII, that of Rousseau
against Voltaire and the Encyclopédistes, of RobespierreagainstDanton andThermidorians, of the Commune against Versailles, of Lamartine
and Hugo against Cavaignac, of Jules
Vallès against Jules Ferry, of Jaurès against Solages and Poincaré, of de
Gaulle against Pétain and against all stateless traitors that
preceded and followed at the head of France.
If we have to be oppressed and defeated as they were, then it will be an
honour. But we will do everything we can to awakentheir memory and legacy which has been trampled upon, and take up again their torch, alongside all
those who lead a similar battle in France and the whole world, by all means necessary. And in spite of what Frontists, Zemmour and others like Houellebecq may think, if this France is
victorious, the France to which we are proud to belong and for which we are
ready to fight, in our case, its streets, schools and public places will
proudly wear these names, which we honour both as French and as Muslims.

The teachings of Islam

Finally, I would like to say something about the
way you express yourself and convey your ideas. Without necessarily questioning
your kindness and honesty, it could be argued that when one attempts to dictate
to people what they should do with their very existence, ordering them to upset
all their lives and to pack in the direction of the unknown, which is rather a
drastic action, maybe we should not be quite so categorical, paternalistic and
condescending. And all themore since I have tried to show that what you force on
people is more than the Prophet (saas) himself had ever imposed on anyone, let
alone in such proportions and conditions. I would like to say that we are able
to disagree with you, remain in France and even in Paris (as I do), not because
we are in love with these terrestrial livesorsold ourreligion for material gain
(which is doubly wrong – come and live in Paris and see – and is an insulting
presumption), but, on the contrary, because we consider with much more legitimacythat reason, justice,
responsibility and even religion demand of us that we stay where we are and act here. Or rather that we
continue to act, because we are not submissive and passive as you claim, we
walk head high, and we certainly will not give in gracefully to the wishes of
those who appoint us as enemies while they could not get anything from us
through intimidation, nor by power, especially as it would amount to a denial
of all universal human principles and all divine laws. We may be reasonable,
attached to our principles and religion, lucid about what is happening around
us (and which is certainly not trivial) and still be in total opposition with
you. Your arrogance, your contempt and your sarcastic laughter could not be
more unwelcome, and have nothing to do with the teachings of Islam.

We have a responsibility to ensure our image,
the image that we give as Muslims, especially in these times when great efforts
are made ​​to describe us as lunatic, narrow-minded, reactionary and unsociablepeople, who cannot
coexist with anyone, not even themselves
(because the Islamic State primarily kills Muslims). Yes, we can coexist with
others anywhere, we can work towards the common good with our fellow citizens
in the West, even in France, although the country has a special history in
terms of the oppression of religion. But just as Christians have managed to
survive and preserve their beliefs and traditions despite the storms that they
have been through, we will also manage to do it
and we will benefit from their help and experience.We must know that we have many friends in France
and around the world, in the West as in the East, and we must be careful not to
fall into the traps of the enemy. And in the end, after weighing all the
factors and having made ​​our decision, we must rely on God Almighty and
Exalted who never abandons those who trust in Him, and Who is sufficient Relief against all hostile coalitions, formidable
though they may be.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we, the Muslims of France, are
fully aware and awake faced with what is happening. We are not indifferent, or
careless, or passive, nor intimidated, or scared, or submissive. We must indeed become more and more
present and active, but it is not appropriate to describe us as helpless,
unable to see what our duties are and how to honour them. Many of us have been
taking initiatives for a long time, and we will be more invested, and
increasingly well organized in order to face current and future challenges with
strength, confidence,insight and serenity.
And we are not alone, many people are already considering us as individuals and
compatriots, and don't try and return us to our condition of Arabs and/or
Muslims. We have with us and will have all people of goodwill, be they Muslim,
Christian or otherwise, all beliefs – and non-beliefs – and all categories of
the population working and who will continue to work with us in the interest of France and
the majority of its citizens, for a better world.

We Muslims in France can take our lives in hand,
and while we welcome gladly any benevolent consulting of anyone, and are
grateful for any help respectfully offered, we categorically reject
paternalism, we allow no one to take us up or to dictate our behaviour, and in
the end we have and exercise the right to make our own decisions, because
nobody knows our situation better than us. The overwhelming majority of Muslims
in France – and the world – has never heard of you and would consider your
exhortations to emigration if not with disdain, at least with amusement, and
with good reason. Your audience, marginal, is mostly non-Muslim, made up of
people who could be in good faith and are seduced by some of your geopolitical
analyses, but are ignorant of Islam and grant you credit that you do not
deserve – not to mention those who exploit your speech with a specific agenda.
I sincerely hope that your reputation will not grow, however, because we do not
need such foolish and inflammatory speeches. But whatever it is, it will be our
responsibility to expose and refute publicly any and all usurper manipulator
for what they are, and we will do it God willing.

Assalaamu
'alaikum! Native French Muslims also have an obligation to follow the Sunnah of
Hijrah from places of grave insecurity to freedom, to person and to faith, to
places where a Muslim can recover security of person and faith, and freedom to
respond appropriately to oppression and evil.

Muslims of North African origin now resident in France, regardless of whether
or not they were born in France, should not only make Hijrah out of France back
to North Africa, and seek refuge in the remote Moroccan, Algerian and Tunisian
countryside, but they should also reach out to assist their native French brothers
and sisters in Islam to also make that Hijrah. This is also a Sunnah.

There may be little time left before the French Government is FORCED to place a
ban on such Hijrah out of France. All that they have to do is to block your
departure by Air or by Sea by declaring that your name is on a No-Fly/Leave
List.

Those who cannot, for whatever reason, leave France, should leave the cities of
France and seek security of person and of faith in the remote French
countryside.

Those who insist on remaining in cities such as Paris have the right to do so
and we do not offer any criticism of them. However it would be quite wicked of
such people if they were to attempt to prevent those who wish to make Hijrah
out of France or out of the French cities.

with love,

Imran N. Hosein

[1]See here from 50.03:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjV6j1T3iy8‘TheMalhamais
the nuclear war that is coming.We know it's coming, because our Prophet prophesied
it. I was thinking that perhaps it might be 5 or 10 years away, but then I had
a dream I shared it with you:I was in Iran for a conference in September and
the dream occurredtwice in the same night. I normally do not share my
dreams with the public. No! But I did on this occasion because I believe that
this dream was sent to me so that I should convey it to others. I saw a nuclear
war. I saw nuclear missiles being shot into the sky. Twice in the same night.
And then I saw Pakistan was a part of it because those who want to keep on
ruling the world so that they can deliver the rule of the world to the state of
Israel can not allow the Islamic world to have nuclear weapons!"

[2]Arousing the indignation of
a Leon Daudet, who denounced the ‘supreme disgrace’ that constituted this
honour to a ‘great Meticprotector of the Jewish traitor.’

[4]‘Kings
always conspire to murder humanity: if they can no longer disfigure Divinity by
superstition, to associate it with their crimes, they try to banish it from the
earth to reign alone on it with crime.’ Robespierre,Second Speech for the feast of the
Supreme Being,
June 8, 1794.